4.3 Article

Effect of hypertonic saline on mucociliary clearance and clinical outcomes in chronic bronchitis

期刊

ERJ OPEN RESEARCH
卷 6, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

EUROPEAN RESPIRATORY SOC JOURNALS LTD
DOI: 10.1183/23120541.00269-2020

关键词

-

资金

  1. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute [NHLBI/NIH 1 P01 HL 108808]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Mucus dehydration and impaired mucus clearance are common features of cystic fibrosis (CF) and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). In CF, inhaled hypertonic saline (HS) improves lung function and produces sustained increases in mucociliary clearance (MCC). We hypothesised that administration of HS (7% NaCl) twice daily for 2 weeks would improve clinical outcomes and produce sustained increases in MCC in COPD subjects with a chronic bronchitis (CB) phenotype. Methods: Twenty-two CB subjects completed a double-blinded, crossover study comparing inhaled HS to a hypotonic control solution (0.12% saline) administered via nebuliser twice daily for 2 weeks. Treatment order was randomised. During each treatment period, symptoms and spirometry were measured. MCC was measured at baseline, shortly after initial study agent administration, and approximately 12 h after the final dose. Results: HS was safe and well tolerated but overall produced no significant improvements in spirometry or patient-reported outcomes. CB subjects had slower baseline MCC than healthy subjects. The MCC rates over 60 min (Ave60Clr) in CB subjects following 2 weeks of HS were not different from 0.12% saline but were slower than baseline (Ave60Clr was 9.1 +/- 6.3% at baseline versus 5.3 +/- 6.9% after HS; p<0.05). Subgroup analyses determined that subjects with residual baseline central lung clearance (14 subjects) had improved spirometry and symptoms following treatment with HS, but not 0.12% saline, treatment. Conclusions: Inhaled HS appeared to be safe in a general CB population. A specific phenotypic subgroup may benefit from HS but requires additional study.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据